今日已更新 184 条资讯 | 累计 37433 条内容
关于我们

标签:#ki

找到 327 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Measuring the Tendency of AI Agents to Go Rogue

This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and originally appeared in The Guardian . In July, Hugging Face, a company that hosts much of the world’s AI software and open-source AI models, was hacked. A malicious dataset had been used to run code on one of its servers. Whoever was behind it captured internal security credentials and moved through systems over a weekend, running thousands of actions from a swarm of temporary server environments. It looked like the work of a sophisticated criminal group. It was not. It was one of OpenAI’s new, still unreleased GPT models...

2026-07-30 原文 →
AI 资讯

What happens after you submit to a CFP (from the other side)

As part of the Förderverein AWS Community DACH e.V. I joined the selection committee for talks again this year. Third year in a row (I wrote about the previous editions and my broader community journey in my 2025 year in review ). The process is always inspiring, fair, and full of incredibly well-crafted abstracts. How the evaluation works Sessionize uses a Comparison Evaluation Mode based on the Elo rating system (from chess). Three sessions are shown at the same time and you rank them relative to each other. You don't assign absolute scores; you just decide "this one is better than that one." Each comparison produces three "games" (A vs B, B vs C, C vs A) and the algorithm adjusts ratings accordingly. After a first pass through all sessions, the system gets smarter about which triplets to show next, targeting sessions with similar ratings for more precise differentiation. It's fast, focused and surprisingly fair, because you only ever think about the three in front of you, not all others. You can also use "Strong opinion" options: Top (this is excellent), Doesn't fit (wrong conference), or Ignore (conflict of interest, can't judge). These signal the algorithm without distorting the ranking. In my case: I marked 2 as "Doesn't fit" (not because they lacked quality; they were actually interesting but too inspirational for a technical community day, better suited for a different audience). The other 2 ignored were my own submissions : Vibecoding in Between Meetings and Serverless vs Kubernetes - The Final Showdown . The full process The behind-the-scenes post by Philipp Garbe explains the whole pipeline in detail. In short: Round 1 (Screening): Board members filter out spam, incomplete proposals, marketing pitches, non-AWS topics, and speakers outside EMEA. Round 2 (Content Evaluation): Every association member can participate. This is the Elo-based comparison round. Members must disclose personal connections and skip sessions they can't rate objectively. Round 3 (Fin

2026-07-27 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Frame Keeps Snapping Back — Part 2: What the Snapback Revealed

Part 1 documented the recurring snapback in practice. This note asks a narrower question: what does the observed pattern support, what remains a working hypothesis, and what changes should follow in the project? Status: Bounded project conclusion. This note separates observed behaviour, working hypothesis, and practical consequence. It is based on current project documents and interactions; it is not external validation or a universal claim about AI systems. What the evidence supports 1. The project already contains a stable relational model The working model is not generic “AI assistance.” It separates reasoning surfaces, uses bounded comparisons, permits two-way cognitive pressure, and keeps final acceptance authority with the human. Reciprocal cognitive contribution, asymmetrical governing authority. 2. Concrete project work preserves the structure better than public abstraction At the concrete level, instructions such as: Review this proposal against that architecture. preserve the distinction between the object being reviewed, the surface applying pressure, the evidence, and the authority that may accept a change. When the same structure was compressed into general prose, generated explanations repeatedly returned to a simpler one-way model of either human control or transferred AI authority. That is an observed pattern in this development process. 3. Public explanation is a separate reasoning surface A README, article, summary, or portfolio page is a projection of the model, not the model itself. It cannot be assumed to reproduce the internal structure faithfully merely because that structure is present in context. The explanation must be reviewed against the model it represents: Does this explanation preserve the actual authority, review, evidence, and state-transition structure? 4. Annoyance was useful boundary data The irritation indicated that the generic rendering was no longer merely an imperfect exploration. It was colliding with an internal frame that

2026-07-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Ruby Reactor vs dry-transaction vs Trailblazer: Choosing a Ruby Workflow Library in 2026

Four ways to orchestrate business logic in Ruby. One map to find yours. You're building something that involves multiple steps. Charge a card, send an email, update inventory. Simple. Then someone says "What if step 3 fails? What undoes steps 1 and 2?" and suddenly you're evaluating workflow libraries. There are four mainstream approaches in Ruby today — Ruby Reactor , dry-transaction , Trailblazer , and raw Sidekiq jobs. This guide helps you pick the right one — not by ranking them, but by mapping them to the problem you're actually solving. The 30-Second Decision Matrix If you only have 30 seconds, start here: You want... Pick... A simple pipeline — 3-5 steps, top-to-bottom, no parallelism dry-transaction Railway-oriented programming with success/failure tracks, already in the Trailblazer ecosystem Trailblazer A full saga orchestrator — DAG dependency resolution, Sidekiq async, auto-compensation, locks, dashboard Ruby Reactor One-off fire-and-forget jobs, no coordination needed Raw Sidekiq None of these are "better" than the others. They solve different problems. Let's walk through each one. Meet the Libraries dry-transaction (v0.16.0) dry-transaction is a thin, focused gem from the dry-rb ecosystem. It wraps a series of operations in a sequential pipeline with a clean step DSL: class CreateUser < Dry :: Transaction step :validate step :persist step :send_welcome_email def validate ( input ) = # ... def persist ( input ) = # ... def send_welcome_email ( input ) = # ... end Steps run top-to-bottom. If any step returns a Failure , the pipeline stops immediately — no further steps execute. It's a railway under the hood: each step can produce Success(value) or Failure(error) , and the pipeline routes accordingly. What it's great at: Simple, synchronous pipelines. It's the Ruby equivalent of an Either monad chained with bind — clean, predictable, and minimal. If you're already in the dry-rb ecosystem (dry-validation, dry-types, dry-monads), it fits naturally. What it d

2026-07-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

My WSL2 VM Kept Losing Network Every Five Minutes

Every five minutes or so, my entire Windows machine would drop off the network for a few seconds — not just WSL, the whole host. Browser tabs would stall, calls would drop, and it only happened while WSL2 was running. This is the story of finding that, plus the WSL memory-tuning landmines I hit right alongside it. The flapping The symptom was a host-wide network blip on a short, regular interval, correlated tightly with WSL2 being up. The cause: WSL2's default networking mode creates a virtual NAT switch on the Windows side, and on this machine that virtual switch was intermittently conflicting with the real network adapter — enough to cause the whole host to briefly renegotiate its connection. The fix was switching WSL2's networking mode entirely, via .wslconfig (on Windows, not inside the Linux filesystem): [wsl2] networkingMode = mirrored dnsTunneling = true autoProxy = true Mirrored networking makes the WSL2 interface share the host's actual network identity instead of sitting behind a separate virtual NAT switch. You can confirm it actually took effect (rather than just trusting the config file) by checking, from inside WSL after a full restart, that its network interface holds the same IP as the Windows host, that the default route points at the real LAN gateway rather than a private NAT range, and that loopback carries mirrored mode's marker address rather than a 172.x NAT address. If any of those don't match, the setting isn't actually active yet. Worth noting: this requires a reasonably recent WSL version and Windows build. If you're on an older one, mirrored mode may not be available at all. The memory landmines, found the hard way Separately — and this had actually caused full VM crashes, not just hangs, at one point — I'd been carrying a few .wslconfig settings that looked reasonable and were each, individually, a documented source of instability: An explicit kernelCommandLine override. Resizing swap past a few GB, which forces WSL to rebuild its virtual

2026-07-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

GoCardless Bank Account Data Alternatives: What to Use When Signups Are Disabled

If you've been building on GoCardless Bank Account Data (formerly Nordigen's free tier), you may have noticed something concerning: new signups are disabled. The official page at bankaccountdata.gocardless.com/new-signups-disabled now blocks all new integrations. Existing users can continue, but if you're starting a new project or evaluating options, you need alternatives — today. What happened GoCardless acquired Nordigen in 2023 and integrated its free bank-data API as "Bank Account Data." The free tier was hugely popular with indie developers, hobbyist projects, and small fintech tools — it offered EU PSD2 coverage without the upfront cost of enterprise providers. Now that door is closing for new users. This mirrors a broader pattern: free open banking tiers are disappearing across the industry. Plaid tightened its free tier, Tink went enterprise-only under Visa, and now Nordigen's free legacy is being sunset for new signups. The question isn't just "what's the alternative" — it's "what alternative doesn't lock me into the same cycle?" The alternatives compared Provider eIDAS cert required? Pricing model EU coverage Best for open-banking.io ❌ No Free tier + paid plans EU (PSD2) Devs who want no certificate hassle Tink (Visa) ✅ Yes Enterprise pricing EU + global Large-scale production Plaid ✅ Yes (EU) Pay-per-call Global US-first teams needing EU too Yapily ✅ Yes Custom pricing EU Enterprise integrations Enable Banking ✅ Yes Custom pricing EU Budget-conscious teams The key differentiator isn't coverage or pricing — it's the certificate requirement . Most providers require you to hold an eIDAS QWAC/QSeal certificate to call their APIs directly. Why certificate-free matters more than you think An eIDAS qualified certificate costs €2,000–10,000 per year , depending on the issuer and type. You need to renew every 1–2 years, maintain audit trails, and handle the operational overhead of certificate rotation. For an indie developer or small SMB tool, the certificate cost

2026-07-24 原文 →
AI 资讯

The AWS Cleanup We Keep Putting Off (I Let an Agent Do It)

It started with a billing alert. Estimated charges had crossed $250. Not scary money, but enough to make me look. And what actually caught my attention wasn't the number, it was the alert itself. I'd clearly set this up at some point, and the threshold felt stale. So I went looking for where the alert lived. It came from a BillingAlerts CloudFormation stack I created back in 2014 and completely forgot about. So a thing I forgot about was warning me about all the other things I'd forgotten about. I opened my stack list and that's when I saw it wasn't alone. It was sitting in a lineup of stacks, and I didn't recognise half of them. Years of leftovers, just sitting there. The stuff you forget about doesn't break anything. It doesn't page you at 2am. It just sits there, quietly billing, until you glance at the invoice and can't remember what half of it is for. Forgotten, still-running resources are one of the biggest sources of wasted cloud spend, by some estimates around a quarter of the average cloud budget . I came to update one alert and I found a mess. To be clear, these stacks weren't really costing me much. Stopped instances, a few half-deleted leftovers. If they'd been the $252, the alert would've tripped every month. But that's the point. You can't tell what's actually costing you until the clutter is gone. So the alert could wait. I wanted these stale stacks gone first. Normally this is a chore. Open the console, find each stack, click delete, wait, refresh, check if it worked, OR write out CLI commands. It's not hard, just tedious. The kind of task I keep putting off. And that's exactly how this started. ClickOps through the console. I'd just finished deleting an old Directory Service directory over in the Mumbai region by hand, clicking through the screens and waiting out the spinner, when it hit me. Barely ten minutes of manual clicking, and I still had a pile of stacks to go. I didn't have to do any of this myself. Why was I still clicking? I opened Kiro ,

2026-07-23 原文 →